The Bin Laden theory is what I've been hearing.Originally Posted by metroman
DCW
The Bin Laden theory is what I've been hearing.Originally Posted by metroman
DCW
Where
would Kerry take us? Into the busom of the UN and the arms of the French? PLEEEZE!
Could Kerry deliver bin
Laden when Bush's command of the US military could not? (Frankly, OBL is more than likely some red splatter
someplace and will never be found.)
Would a Kerry energy policy be any better than Clinton/Gore's? At least
Clinton had surplus natural gas to push - that's all gone now. And please don't argue for "renewables" - what
some politicians (Kerry and other Democrats largely) are really offering is "something for nothing" - an ancient
ploy. As an energy specialist, the only way we've gotten any "renewables" is to make them a form of corporate
welfare.
Can we prevent future terrorism attacks with NO additional restraints on the most open society on
earth?
The answer is that Kerry only offers us wishful thinking and empty promises. We are faced with a
world-historical challenge and only Bush has a realistic strategic plan. We voters had best realize that this is
war and the fate of Western civilization depends on our decisions.
Watching a Michael Moore propaganda flick
is hardly responsible preparation for deciding November's choice.
Besides, the betting odds are better than
3:2 Bush.
<<We are faced with a
world-historical challenge and only Bush has a realistic strategic plan.>>
You're joking, right?
I
mean, seriously.
Bush the only guy with a "realistic" and "strategic" plan?
That's a joke.
Right?
And what's the plan? To go on an another 30 day vacation, get drunk as hell and bash his mellon on a
coffee table as he passes out while Satan's minions Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Rice rape the world so that
they can get fat ass year end multi-million dollar bonus checks once they get re-hired by oil companies and defense
contractors after they get ousted in 2004 or get thrown to the street due to term limits in 2008?
<<We voters
had best realize that this is war and the fate of Western civilization depends on our decisions.>>
What war?
That we illegally invaded two countries that had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks and pissed off every
single human being in the known universe that doesn't watch the Fox News Network means we're at war? If you can
constitute that we are at war (and Appointee Bush has already stated a year and a half ago that major "conflict" was
over, so we can't possibly be at war, can we?), then the only reason we are at war is because the Bush
administration started the frickin' war in the first place.
It ain't about political parties at this
point. It's about doing what's right.
Give me one single, solitary point where anything that this
administration has done has actually benefitted Americans other than corporate cronism and military
spending?
How's the environment?
How's the deficeit?
How's the economy?
How's the forclosure
rate on small businesses?
How's the education system? (NCLB)
How's the medical system?
How's your
personal freedom? (Patriot Act)
It's a freakin' scam and everybody knows it. I'm completely pissed, and
I'm a white, middle-class, honorably discharged US Army Infantryman, college grad, who typically votes
conservative.
Pissed.
Way pissed.
Now listening to: Rock Against Bush "Volume 1"
If a guy's a cocksucker in his life, when he dies, he don't become a saint. - Morris Levy, Hitmen
Holmes' Theme Song
Jagshemash, Pepsi Max!
If a guy's a cocksucker in his life, when he dies, he don't become a saint. - Morris Levy, Hitmen
Holmes' Theme Song
Hey, Sacogoo, you can be just as
pissed as you want - I'm sure you're enjoying your self-indulgent emotionalism.
Obviously, my understanding
of the facts and issues differs considerably from yours.
But if you don't understand that a big bunch of
well-funded murders wants to make you bow to Mecca tive times a day - or kill you if you won't - then you're
blind, dangerously so. And it's not just al Queda.
If we pull back inside our borders, they will still come
at us. You can't win playing defense and you can not deter. The only route is take it to the enemy - that is,
change the Middle East.
We're in this foxhole together, remember?
As to the rest of your complaints,
the environment is OK, getting better - there is argument about some details. I'm good with closing all those old
coal plants, BTW, even if Bush thinks they are truly grandfathered under existing law. The economy is doing great -
not a phoney boom, but the start of a steady growth phase. Education - the Federal government should do less, not
more. I look to my local school board, not Washington. The deficit is truly bipartisan - don't you recognize
Keynesian stimulation?
So just what does Kerry offer? Sorry, but so far all I've heard is contradictory
mush from that guy.
Don't try toOriginally Posted by Whitehall
use that McCarthyism BS to justify an illegal invasion of two countries that had nothing to do with the September 11
attacks. The hard sell of the Communism Domino Effect by the military industrial complex in the early 50's is what
got us into the Vietnam fiasco, but I guarantee you that this line of crap ain't gonna work this time. Bowing to
Mecca. That culture doesn't have the mentality, organization, or social structure to be anything more than a base
tribalistic society rather than the organized imperialistic world conquerers that the hard core neo-cons are
painting them to be.
Well funded murderers. Are you referring to the U.S. military? The Saudis? Because
the people who I see committing the murders, attacks, and crimes against humanity (such as illegally invading two
countries which had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks and killing ten of thousands of innocent civilians
in the process, or being the country of origin of the terrorists who committed the 9/11 attacks) are those
groups.
<<The only route is take it to the enemy - that is, change the Middle East.>>
Yeah, that's
terrific foreign policy. Let's manipulate and influence and change foreign countries just for the benefit of
American corporations and . Worked wonders for us in setting up the Central American Banana Republics, East Asia
(remember Vietnam at all? Korea to this day?), the Middle East (Shah of Iran anyone?). This type of foreign policy
of corporate imperialism has only created the type of resentment and hatred from foreign countries that we tried to
"change" that culminated in the September 11 attacks against the US. Nobody is bombing Canada or Finland, because
they are smart enough to keep their noses out of everybody elses business.
<<We're in this foxhole together,
remember?>>
If you are supporting an administration that committed illegal, pre-emptive invasions of
countries that had no involvement in the September 11 attacks we're not. If you are supporting an administration
who not only condones, but conducts torture, illegally detains people with no charges, and violates the Geneva
conventions we're not in the foxhole together. If you are supporting an administration that came to power without
a majority of the popular votes (and electoral to all you Hamiltonians out there as it has been shown repeatedly
that if the supreme court did not halt the recall, Gore would have won Florida and the electoral college - we
already know he won the popular vote) then we're not in the same foxhole together.
<<Education - the
Federal government should do less, not more. I look to my local school board, not Washington.>>
Too bad
Bush's "No Child Left Behind" legislation has basically removed any potential for your local school board to
regulate themselves, and will be the ruination of public education. (Even hardcore conservative states like Utah
are decrying this horrific piece of legislation.)
<<As to the rest of your complaints, the environment is OK,
getting better>>
Whoa ho! Better? That's rich! Bush has been labled as the worst environmental president
in history. Hell, he makes Regan and James Watt look like tree hugging squirrel lovers.
<<The economy is
doing great - not a phoney boom, but the start of a steady growth phase.>>
Bush's economy:
* I shattered
the record for the largest annual deficit in US history.
* I set an economic record for most private
bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.
* I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month
period.
* I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the US stock market. In my first
year in office, over 2 million Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues every month.
<<So just
what does Kerry offer? Sorry, but so far all I've heard is contradictory mush from that guy.>>
Anybody but
Bush in '04. If he gets re-elected, I swear to the powers that be that I will pack up my daughter and move out of
the country. He isn't going to get one more tax dollar out of me so that he can fund and run his fascist regime of
illegal global corporate imperialism. The only appointment that the Bush/Cheney ticket deserves in '04 is ajoining
cells in the maximum security section at Leavenworth with 300 lb. rapists (with a penchant for anal sex) as
cellmates.
Now listening to: Pink Panthers Penthouse Party
you guys could do what I do
and that's whenever I'm discussing politics with anyone I now refer to Bush as "Appointee Bush" instead of
President.
Nice post Sacogoo! I think youOriginally Posted by Sacogoo
covered all the bases on that one. Sen Robert Byrd on Meet the Press Sunday with Tim Russert says he's served
under 11 Presidents & Dubya is by far the most dangerous one...
Way to take on all them pot smokin liberal commies, Whitehall!
EeeeHaaaw! Yep, we'd all be wearin head towels if it wasn't for Mister President Bush goin after Bin Laden with
all them troops. He's a manly Commander Chief! War hero if'n I remember correct! Much better than that little
girlie fly-boy wimp, Kerry! Just take over the whole damn middle east! Just in case. We got the guns, may as well
use 'em! Karma Schwarma! Get it? Hee Hee! Human Shuman! I love that trickle down economics too. You only have to
look at one statistic! Look how good our economy's doin! Oops, damn! That was one of them adylescent emotional
outbursts again. I just couldn't resist a little self-indulgent emotional outburst, with all the liberal wacky
tobbacy I've been smokin' (oops, shouldn't have said that on line, thanks to the Patriot Act. the Feds'll be
here any minute!), but I'm learnin' from those God fearin Republicans how to be more selfless. And hell, the
planet's going to be uninhabitable anyway, lets just have fun burnin up the rest of the oil. Give everybody a
Humvee! And don't go seein that well documented pack of lies 9/11 thing. Wouldn't want to interfere in all your
open minded info gatherin' your doin to study for the election!
Last edited by DrSmellThis; 07-19-2004 at 07:16 AM.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
Originally Posted by DrSmellThis
Takes me back to some of my more spirited debates with FTR. At least she gave
good phone sex.
OMG.... What a crock'o'shit!!!! Keep spewing thatThe answer is that
Kerry only offers us wishful thinking and empty promises. We are faced with a world-historical challenge and only
Bush has a realistic strategic plan. We voters had best realize that this is war and the fate of Western
civilization depends on our decisions
cokehead's useless partylines....sad thing is that you actually believe that crap!!!
Eep Opp Ork Aah Aah...
It's not clear who could've
"appointed" him, either. A Supreme Court can't. Maybe we should call him "spilled milk" and look to the future.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
A rational comment, Doc? I may have to delete it as being off topic.Originally Posted by DrSmellThis
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
Yep, gonna have to go back to
all that "irrational" posting of exhaustive documentation. I admit there have been some emotions in the thread,
but that is part and parcel of the subject of Bush, for some reason; hugely moreso, here and abroad, than any
president in any of our lifetimes -- even in the history of the US. Why??!
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
OK, a rational comment about
politics in this thread.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
"I think
every American ought to see it." (Rolling Stone, 7/13)
"As far as I know, none of the facts in the movie have
been refuted. That is, I think the evidence in the movie is accurate." (Nova TV (Dutch), 7/14)
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
Interesting post. (and nice
pik! )
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
Hm. Okay. I'll make a
political statement and then jump out of this discussion.
The news media (who are generally agreed to have a
liberal bias by most conservatives) have had a field day with Mr. Moore, picking apart the inaccuracies of this
movie. For example, the claim that members of the Bin Laden family were allowed to fly out of the United States
during the 4-day ban on air traffic has been shown repeatedly to be pure nonsense.
People like Moore, who take
facts and mix them with fiction in order to stir up pseudo-patriotic slurs, never tell the whole truth. You can find
them on both sides of the aisle (Moore is countering Rush Limbaugh's years and years of conservative tirades). The
film is propaganda, contains clearly-documented facts and falsehoods, and hopefully will have no effect on the
election.
Kerry just scares me. His body language is so fake and contrived. He doesn't speak with conviction.
Bush, at least, speaks with conviction. And for all his faults (and despite Moore's character assassinaton film),
he has never been shown to have lied about the reasons for his invasion of Iraq.
Many people in this country
wrongly believe we are in Iraq for the oil. At the height of its production, Iraq never provided more than 5% of our
imported oil. President Franklin Roosevelt committed the United States to long-term mutual defense obligations with
Saudi Arabia in the 1930s. He did so because the European powers were carving up oil mandates in the Middle East at
a rapid clip, and Roosevelt feared the United States would be left without vital resources in the event of another
major war.
So, the first Persian Gulf War was fought for two reasons: to put a stop to Saddam Hussein's
aggression (which would ultimately have led to another global-wide conflict, since his declared aim was to create a
new Arabic/Islamic empire); and to honor our then 50+ year old treaty with Saudi Arabia, which was under imminent
attack.
Former President Bush was wrongly portrayed as being concerned about Kuwaiti oil, because it really
didn't matter who controlled the oil. What mattered was how we honored our agreements and whether we were prepared
to stand idly by while another dictator began capturing huge portions of the world. The Soviet Union was only just
collapsing after existing for 80 years. It was never in American interests to allow a new power to arise and replace
the Soviet Bloc as a threat to our stability.
The current President Bush was given bad evidence by the
intelligence community. Period. This fact has been so well documented through several investigations that, if the
Democrats could show it was otherwise, our current presidential campaign debates would be overwhelmingly focused on
the confirmation of Moore's nonsense. Instead, we have Bush nailing Kerry over Kerry's supposed changes in
position and Kerry chasing Bush over Bush's supposed mis-interpretations of Kerry's supposed non-changes in
positions.
Why isn't Kerry pressing home the attack that Moore launched? Because Moore's attack was little
more than hot air with no political value.
If the so-called liberal media cannot help but find fault with Mr.
Moore's "facts", and if the Democratic Party's presidential candidate cannot use Mr. Moore's "facts" to rally
American public opinion against the incumbent Chief Executive, clearly there is something seriously wrong with Mr.
Moore's "facts".
And, therefore, they should be given no further scrutiny. I, for one, am tired of seeing the
movie picked apart for its factual errors. It has failed to make its case, since its case is built on inaccuracies
and misrepresentations.
I could just as easily call Mr. Moore a liar, but I would rather say he did no better
than Mr. Bush, and acted on bad information.
Mr. Bush, btw, is responsible for far fewer Iraqi deaths than his
predecessor. By some estimates, U.N. sanctions resulted in approximately 500,000 Iraqi deaths -- all children. Even
10 per cent of that number represents a price too high for NOT going into Iraq.
Yes, we'll probably lose more
than 1,000 soldiers before this is all over. And that number doesn't include the numerous serious injuries our
soldiers will return home with. Thousands of American families are going to be impacted by our involvement there.
But the alternative was that we would have continued murdering thousands of Iraqi babies through deprivation every
year.
If going into Iraq was wrong, maintaining the sanctions would have been even more wrong. So, let's give
Mr. Bush some credit for making a hard choice, even if we don't all agree with or like the consequences of the
choice he made. Mr. Gore, had he won the election, would have had to face the same choice. I fear he would have
continuing allowing innocent children to die.
President Clinton was one of the worst commanders-in-chief this
country has ever had. His foreign policy was generally derided and considered disastrous during his presidency. He
failed to provide our troops with the support they required when they were committed to action, and though we
technically won the Battle of Mogadishu by inflicting more casualties on the enemy than we took, AND by achieving
most of our objectives, he nonetheless betrayed the courage and trust of our soldiers by acting like we had been
defeated, and generally leading our armed forces in a shameful, cowardly fashion.
He also disgraced this nation
with numerous scandals. But because most Americans had jobs, we were willing to endure his nonsense and bad
leadership.
If Mr. Bush loses in November, he will lose because too few Americans have jobs, not because of the
choices he made with respect to which countries would feel the brunt of American military power.
While many
people could have chosen differently from Mr. Bush, it has yet to be shown (and can never really be shown) that
anyone would have chosen more wisely.
At the very least, we now have an obligation to help the Iraqi people
avoid falling into the misery of living under another dictatorship. Because if a new Iraqi dictatorship rises from
the ashes, what guarantees do we have that they won't try to create a new Arabic/Islamic empire again?
Absolutely none. In fact, the forces opposing Iraqi democracy today (from wothin Iraq) all represent, to one
degree or another, the very real threat of a future regional war of conquest. We owe it to the service people who
died in the first Persian Gulf War, as well as those who have perished in the current Iraqi conflict, to do our best
to ensure that their sacrifices were not in vain.
We cannot do that by pulling out of Iraq before it is clear
our continued presence will only serve to make matters worse. We CAN do that by continuing to allow narrow-minded
extremists like Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. Moore to continue to lambast our presidents with half-truths and
unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.
Thanks for your detailed and
substantive post, Friendly1 -- good grist for the mill of left vs. right debates. You made some interesting
points; some I concur with, some unclear, and others I disagree with. I wish I had time to respond as thoroughly as
your post deserves. But with all the work I have these days I just wanted to call attention to the fact that there
is no longer any need to settle for general dismissives like, "Moore's film is obviously chock full of falsehoods".
Anyone can now take the specific references for each claim, as linked above, and lay out their case. For example,
Section Two of the references documents the exodus of the Saudis and Bin Ladens shortly after 9/11. It
indicates that "only one" of the many such flights was thought to occur during the grounding; that the film never
claimed the whole exodus happened during the grounding; but, that the mass exodus did happen as portrayed, approved
at very high levels of government. Not that Moore should be anybody's preferred news source, but what wasn't
factual? The only thing I know of is that the limo was maybe pelted with just one egg in that one scene and not
"eggs," as the movie claimed.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
Someone sent me
this today. I never considered this what do
u think?
Real or what?
DCW
Basically a load of crap put together by people who want to fan theOriginally Posted by DCW
flames of consipiracy theorists. They would probably say that the bunker bombing which failed to kill Hitler was
probably just faked, too.
Explosions don't incinerate everything around them. Some things survive, and some
things don't.
That's really messed up.
Yea, it is. What evidence is there
that there was a plane, btw?
I never believed that the crash in
Long Island was caused by the wind, remeber that one it was a few days after 911.
DCW
Yea, I remember that. When you said
Long Island, I was thinking of the JFK to Paris one that went down, and people said they saw a missle. The one that
went down after 9/11 they recently came out with an explanation. Basically, I think somethign fell off the plane,
and then the pilot overcompenstated or something.
The plane that went down over LongOriginally Posted by bjf
Island was due to a mechanical flaw. It had to do with the stresses on the laminate used in the tail section, the
effects of wake turbulance and repeated side to side motion. It was something Airbus had specifically warned about
months prior to this accident. Nothing really that remarkable about it. Airliners and huge ships both are amazingly
fragile to stresses outside their design limits.
As for the video, it was well done and asked some good
questions that need to be answered. There were several things about it that struck me right off as nonsense. First
was the grainy footage from the Pentagon cameras they were using to question it being a 757. It was too poor a
footage to be able to tell anything.
Most investigators dismiss eyewitness accounts because they are not very
reliable and they have probably heard all the comments about what it looked and sounded like. Try it sometime, after
a sudden stressful but brief event, give people a couple days then compare their stories. It can be pretty
interesting.
Another was the hole through the building. An airplane is a fragile thing, impacting concrete walls
at over 500 MPH it would have mostly disintegrated on impact. Only a few of the more massive parts would have
travelled far. One of those parts was just the right size and shape to have made that hole they showed in the inner
rings; the engines! I thought it was strange that there was no debris also, even a missile would have left some
debris, especially one that made such a nice, neat hole through a wall like that. I suspect the picture was taken
after the remains were at least partly clean up. You'll notice that there isn't even remnants of the wall shown!
Where did all the concrete and twisted steel go?
They mention that the E-Ring didn't collapse for about 23
minutes. It took the World Trade Center towers 56 and 103 minutes to start to collapse. I think it's pretty clear
that they were hit by airplanes. You'll also recall that the jet fuel burned off very quickly at the World Trade
Center; funny thing about jet fuel, it's highly volitile and would go up quickly causing the kinds of fire damage
you saw in some of the pictures. It would be extremely hot but burn out fast.
There may be some validity to the
questions posed but much of what was shown only made me think they were lacking any real engineering knowledge or
evidence and pretty much spoiled their argument.
The JFK to Paris flight you mentioned was interesting. I'm
still dissatisfied with the government's answers about that. While what the investigation describes could have
happened, I saw the picture showing what looks much like a missile below the plane. It could be an artifact or could
be closer or further away than it seems but I've never heard it addressed other than a curt dismissal.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
The video does indeed ask some
important questions. A lot of the conspiracy theories about Bush are sounding less far-fetched with time.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
If so much of their video wasn't clearly baseless, it would have done better at bringing upOriginally Posted by DrSmellThis
the important questions.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
We are not constrained from
asking questions by the quality of the film, incomplete and vague though it was. The film as a whole was far from
completely baseless. To be objective I think you have to look at what you can take from the film; instead of taking
the part you can't know about one way or the other, and being primarily interested in that aspect of it. The film
is not responsible for providing any final word or proof on anything, after all. For example, why no wreckage? There
wasn't time to remove it all before the footage was shot, and total disintegration of the plane is almost
unimaginable. What engineering data would suggest otherwise?
BTW, has anyone even seen a coherent
engineering/munitions analysis of the WTC disintegration and collapse? I'd love to. Not to be paranoid, but I'm
still not fully convinced that the two planes by themselves, with their rapid-burning fuel, could have caused that
whole chain of events to unfold as it did.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks